> I agree that in our particular universe the role of time is complex....<
IF there is anything that is not complex...
Time is definitely not a Ding an sich, definitely not a 'thing' and as
agreed: we really don't know how to identify that word. The phenomena we
assign as 'time related' are poorly identified.
>...It's entirely possible that time may yet turn out to be a simple
I tried once to consider it a 'motion'-coordinate (in strictly 'physical'
motion - paired with space) - later tried to alter it to a
'change-coordinate' but neither motion nor change turned out to be exactly
identifiable concepts (ie how far we can refine our model views). As we
learn more, we know less and less.
----- Original Message -----
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Bitstrings, Ontological Status and Time
> Stephen Paul King writes:
> > I would agree that Time is just a coordinate (system), or as Leibniz
> > claimed "an order of succession", if we are considering only events in
> > space-time that we can specify, e.g. take as a posteriori. What I am
> > to argue is that we can not do this in the a priori case for reasons
> > have to do with Heisenberg's Unceratanty Principle. Since it is
> > to construct a space-time hypersurface where each point has associated
> > it all of the physical variables that we need to compute the entire
> > manifold, from initial Big Bang singulary to the, possibly, infinite
> > it is a mistake to think of time simply as a coordinate. OTOH, it is
> > consistent if we are dealing with some particular situation and using
> > Special (or General) Relativity theory to consider the behavious of
> > and rulers. ;-)
> I agree that in our particular universe the role of time is complex.
> Since we don't have a unified theory yet, we really can't say anything
> definitive about what time will turn out to be. It's entirely possible
> that time may yet turn out to be a simple coordinate. Wolfram is pushing
> ideas where the universe is modeled as a cellular automaton (CA) which
> has discrete units of space and time. Of course his theories don't
> quite work yet, but then, nobody else's do, either.
> > I am trying to include the implications of QM in my thinking and
> > my point about time and my polemics against the idea of "block"
> > I do not care how eminent the person is that advocates the idea of Block
> > space-time, they are simply and provably wrong.
> In this universe, perhaps so, although as I argued above absent a true
> and accurate theory of physics I don't agree that we can so assertively
> say that block models are disproven. But I do agree that a simple,
> relativity-based block model (if such exists) is incomplete as a model
> for our universe since it does not include QM.
> BTW there is also a block-universe type construction possible in QM.
> Let phi(t) represent the state function of the entire universe at time t.
> Then Schrodinger's equation H(phi) = i hbar d/dt(phi) shows how the
> wave function will evolve. It is determinstic and in a many worlds
> interpretation this is all there is to the underlying physics. So this
> is a block-universe interpretation of QM.
> However, it is non relativistic. From what I understand, a full marriage
> of QM and special relativity requires quantum field theory, which is
> beyond my knowledge so I don't know whether it can be thought of as a
> block universe. And then of course that still leaves gravitation and
> the other phenomena of general relativity, where we have no theory at
> all that works. Whether it will be amenable to a block universe view
> is still unknown as far as I understand.
> I don't see why you are so bound on rejecting block universes. You just
> don't like them?
> > If you look around in the journals and books you will find
> > the implications of multiple-time dimensions. For example:
> Sure, in fact I first learned of the idea from one of Tegmark's
> papers, he who is unknowingly one of the founding fathers of this list.
> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html describes his ideas
> for why universes with 2 or more time dimensions are unlikely to have
> observers. The point is, you can't go quoting Leibniz about
> this stuff. We've left him far behind.
> Hal Finney